On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:29:46AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> Thanks for the review Brian, I'll walk over it and fix the points you
> mentioned.
> >
> >
> > I still don't really get why we have separate -l and -s options here. It
> > seems to me that the behavior of -l already gives us the information
> > that -s does. Even if that's not obvious enough, the -l command could
> > just print out both. For example:
> >
> > "Largest inode: 1234 (32-bit)"
>
> I agree with you here, but, I'll let Dave answer this question, maybe he had
> some another idea for it that I'm not aware of.
No preference here; all that I was suggesting was that if you want
to know whether inodes are 32/64 bit it doesn't matter what the
largest inode number is.
i.e. "Can I mount this with inode32 and have no problems (yes/no)?"
And it's a lot easier to just query for *any* 64 bit inode than it
is to find the largest inode number...
If you want to combine the two, then that's fine by me.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|